Obser v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Obser v. Board of Education

266 A.D.2d 522, 698 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12310

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 29, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 522 (Obser v. Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Obser v. Board of Education, 266 A.D.2d 522, 698 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants third-party plaintiffs, the Board of Education of the City of New York and the City of New York, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, [523]*523Queens County (Bruno, J.), dated August 18, 1998, as granted (a) that branch of the motion of the defendant Iannelli Construction Co., Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims against it, and (b) the motion of the third-party defendant New York City School Construction Authority for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the defendant lannelli Construction Co., Inc. (hereinafter Iannelli) did not make a special use of the school entrance at which the plaintiff Herbert Obser was injured (see, Minott v City of New York, 230 AD2d 719). Further, neither Iannelli nor the third-party defendant, New York City School Construction Authority (hereinafter NYCSCA) controlled the area where the plaintiff Herbert Obser’s accident occurred. Moreover, there was no evidence that they created the dangerous condition (see, Bykofsky v Waldbaum’s Supermarkets, 210 AD2d 280). Therefore, both Iannelli and NYCSCA were entitled to summary judgment. S. Miller, J. P., Altman, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants third-party plaintiffs, the Board of Education of the City of New York and the City of New York, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, [523]*523Queens County (Bruno, J.), dated August 18, 1998, as granted (a) that branch of the motion of the defendant Iannelli Construction Co., Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims against it, and (b) the motion of the third-party defendant New York City School Construction Authority for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the defendant lannelli Construction Co., Inc. (hereinafter Iannelli) did not make a special use of the school entrance at which the plaintiff Herbert Obser was injured (see, Minott v City of New York, 230 AD2d 719). Further, neither Iannelli nor the third-party defendant, New York City School Construction Authority (hereinafter NYCSCA) controlled the area where the plaintiff Herbert Obser’s accident occurred. Moreover, there was no evidence that they created the dangerous condition (see, Bykofsky v Waldbaum’s Supermarkets, 210 AD2d 280). Therefore, both Iannelli and NYCSCA were entitled to summary judgment. S. Miller, J. P., Altman, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 522, 698 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obser-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack